"It’s clear from this election that there are many voters, especially those hardest hit by rising prices, those who experienced the pandemic-era financial support slipping away, who voted primarily on the economy."

"We’ve seen in the United States and worldwide if you have to break pearls in half to be able to afford your groceries, that is going to be the top-of-mind issue when you go to the ballot box. Democrats win when voters know that we’re the ones fighting for them against those who will seek to rip them off to add an extra billion dollars to their bank account."

That's Ben Wikler, answering the question: "You have said for years that abortion rights is the issue that best motivates Democratic voters and best convinces Republicans to vote for Democrats. Did something change about that in this election, or did the Harris campaign not focus enough on abortion rights?"

From "Wisconsin Democratic Chair Says He Is the One to Revive a Distressed Party/Ben Wikler, who has led the Wisconsin Democratic Party since 2019, announced a bid to be national party chair with a platform to 'unite, fight, win'" (NYT)(free-access link).

I like Ben because I knew him quite well when he was a teenager. He's obviously got highly developed verbal skills. Not highly developed enough to keep me from noticing that he didn't confront the complexities of the Democrats' involvement with the abortion issue. They forefronted it, and he wanted them to forefront it.

Did something change about that in this election, or did the Harris campaign not focus enough on abortion rights? What's the answer? The question required him to pick. Either it's no longer true that abortion is the Democrats' best issue OR the Democrats needed to push even harder on the abortion issue. But maybe leaping past a reporter's well-structured question and saying "It's the economy, stupid" in elaborate, elegant language is a good demonstration of the skill Democrats want in their chair.

ADDED: I spent a lot of time trying to ascribe meaning to "break pearls in half." A commenter — wild chicken — asked if that's "a saying in Wisconsin." And I got all involved:

I googled it when I was writing the post, and I considered elaborating on this figure of speech. I couldn't find any example of "break pearls in half" as a figurative expression. I did find out that pearls are *cut* in half for some purposes, but these were real, not metaphorical, pearls. What did Ben mean? All I can think of is Mickey Mouse, starving, and cutting one bean into slices.

Then I got a text from Meade: "Pills/Bad transcription by NYT."

For more laughs, here's Mickey:

"At least one highly dedicated Wikipedia user has been scrubbing controversial aspects of [Kamala] Harris’s 'tough-on-crime' record from her Wikipedia page, her decision not to prosecute..."

"... Steve Mnuchin for mortgage fraud-related crimes, her strong support of prosecutors in Orange County who engaged in rampant misconduct, and other tidbits — such as her previous assertion that 'it is not progressive to be soft on crime' — that could prove unflattering to Harris as the public first gets to know her on the national stage. The edits, according to the page history, have elicited strong pushback from Wikipedia’s volunteer editor brigade, and have drawn the page into controversy, though it’s a fight the pro-Harris editor is currently winning.... Last month, a Reddit user remembered this Atlantic piece and wrote a Jupyter script to see which 2020 vice presidential contender had the most edits in a span of three weeks: Harris had 408, Stacey Abrams had 66, Sen. Elizabeth Warren had 22, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar had four. Another Redditor pointed out that a majority of Harris’s edits were coming from a single person.... who goes by the username 'Bnguyen1114'...."

From "THERE’S A WAR GOING ON OVER KAMALA HARRIS’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE, WITH UNFLATTERING ELEMENTS VANISHING" (The Intercept).

IN THE COMMENTS: wild chicken says:

Too bad. It sounds like some of those "damning" items would recommend her to me!

A black law-and-order candidate would be awesome.

Wouldn't it be funny if she were rather conservative deep down but had to play that Democrat game because California.

Has Rush Limbaugh declined in the Trump Era? If so, is it because of Trump?

In the open thread here last night, Smerdyakov raised the subject. (Smerdyakov's Blogger profile gives no information about him, other than that he wants to be thought of as "the son of the reeking one.")

Here's Smerdyakov:

Is it me or is Rush losing his sense of humor over the this impeachment thing. Depressing, and I don't listen to Rush for that. And the half hour monologues about Papadapoulos and Mifsud every other day. He used to be a lot more entertaining.

Skylark responded:

Yeah, Rush has lost the movement on his fastball. I don’t listen to him to hear him rant like the guy in the bar, I listened to him for interesting analysis. He was always very good at that kind of stuff. Leave the ranting, fifes and drums and three cornered hats to Mark Levin and Hannity.

Narciso said:

Rush has been at this for 30 years, and he doesnt see it getting better, the most outrageous things get tractions and the things of value get derided.

Wild chicken said:

Yeah, Rush has lost the movement on his fastball He's gotten more shouty than before. None of the talk guys are much fun anymore.

It's the Era of That's Not Funny, but Trump is funny... maybe so funny (and shouty) that there's no room for anyone else in the game anymore. The contrast is lost, and Trump is so big, he blots out all competitors. I know Trump caused me to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. I let my subscription to the podcast version of the show lapse, and I used to listen all the time. I can't say if he's declined in the Trump Era, that's why I'm reading these comments and trying to understand.

There are 2 more Rush-related comments in the thread. Limited Perspective said:

I can't listen to Rush anymore. He used to find interesting topics in the news, insight into politics and human nature with a sense of humor. Now when I tune in, it's all rants and the repetitive, repeat, repeat, repeat, of last month's rant. I guess everyone winds down in time. I did enjoy listening in the day.

He sees change. And rhhardin said something that I remember him saying from time to time in the past, not seeing change (and perhaps not listening lately):

Rush is popular for a larger-than-life persona, which is actually self-deprecating humor.

When he moralizes he's awful, because he can't do self-deprecation at the same time.

This has been going on for years, it being a question of a ratio, is all.

I'll do a little poll. If you haven't been a listener to the show in the Trump Era, you should refrain from participating. Do not vote just to express support or hostility for Rush!

Has Rush declined in the Trump Era? (Pick the answer that's closest to what you think (and don't answer if none are close).)

No. He's still going strong.

No. But things have changed in a way that has made him less appealing.

Yes. He's running out of what it takes to do a long show every day.

Yes. He can't figure out how to do his thing well in the Trump Era.

pollcode.com free polls

UPDATE: Poll results:

"Why are adults going to so many superhero movies? How could they possibly hold your interest? I’m genuinely mystified by this aspect of our culture."

I wrote, in last night's café. I got some answers:

1. "Do you read Homer? 'Cause, maybe it ain't Shakespeare, but it *is* Homer" (Unknown).

2. "It's a mythos of sorts, if we wanted to get all sophisticated Joseph Campbell and the hero's journey, what makes a hero — are they born or just rise to the occasion?" (narciso, with typos corrected).

3. "Ann, the reason is people are more [unintelligent] than they were in times past" (wild chicken, with rude term censored).

4. "Dreams of our youth. The military adventure, the hot girl who finally agreed to a date, the university for finding answers, hitchhiking across the country, getting into a fist fight, making money, all ended in disappointment. Why the hell does anyone go to [a movie], especially romantic movies? An escape from the disappointment with our dreams" (Limited Perspective).

5. "My best guess is that Robert Downey Junior, who riffs on the tough [sci]-fi actors of the 60s, and the other highly paid actors who portray silly superheroes, are to the 2010s what Dylan, who riffed on the tough Delta Basin singers of the 30s, was to the 1960s. When a trained actor like Downey filters an older art form, to the kids who are watching, that is ancestor worship. They don't know they are getting something that is not quite the original. They are impressed by the backstory. (Tolkien pulled this trick in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, in a different way - making you think that there was some great archetypal background to a story about a bunch of simple little Victorian hobbits running around a landscape, seeking to do good and defeat evil). I think that the superhero movies mostly sell to people in their 30s and below, which makes sense - not that they are kids, but compared to someone like Downey, who was an adult in the early 1980s, when all sorts of great actors and actresses, now long gone, were still alive --- well, they (people in their 30s) actually are kids, more or less. Hence, while 'Ironman' may be a joke to me, someone who is older than Downey, to them it is something like art. Also who does not like to eat movie theater popcorn and drink huge sodas?" (Anonymous).

6. "There is a (Super-Hero) shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus" (Ingachuck'stoothlessARM).

7. "I’m with Althouse, I don’t understand the appeal of these superhero movies either. Wife and I just finished binge watching 'Les Miserables' on PBS app and it was wonderful, great performances by Dominic Wast and Lily Collins, and perfect sets and costumes. You would literally think you were in 1830s France. Now watching season 5 of 'Bosch' on Amazon. Nothing in theaters as good as these shows" (MountainMan).

8. "I wholeheartedly agree. 47 years ago, I devoured all the Marvel comic books (cost .20/each), learned how to read and loved them all (Silver Surfer, The Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, et seq.) As an adult nearly 50 years later, watch these loud ass movies with teens at some multiplex? Bah" (Bay Area Guy).

9. "Some of the appeal has to be in the archetypes. Hulk is a comic representation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, for example ... and that story is about the duality of man. Civilization vs. barbarism. Jordan Peterson has a lot to say about archetypes in storytelling, and why they resonate so strongly with us" (Pianoman).

10. "For many of us, we grew up reading about these characters, and still love them. For others it the attraction is the story, a story as old as man himself...good guys versus bad guys and the good guys win. How could they possibly hold your interest? The same way women are fascinated by Harlequin romances and Fifty Shades of Grey. Who wouldn't want to be Tony Stark...rich, witty, super-smart and attractive to women. Or Captain America? Or Thor? The women in this universe are all smart, successful and heroic too. I’m genuinely mystified by this aspect of our culture. Don't look now, but your elitism is showing. At least you didn't call it deplorable" (Gahrie).

I'll go to 11 for Ice Nine: "Jeez, Ann, duh! Big explosions, and awesome car chases and crashes, and super cool magic flying guys, and hot shit outfits, and really easy to follow plots, and...Oh, you said 'adults' didn't you. Sorry."